DOCSLIB.ORG

Game Theory- Prisoners Dilemma Vs Battle of the Sexes EXCERPTS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Game Theory- Prisoners Dilemma Vs Battle of the Sexes EXCERPTS Lesson 14. Game Theory 1 Lesson 14 Game Theory c 2010, 2011 ⃝ Roberto Serrano and Allan M. Feldman All rights reserved Version C 1. Introduction In the last lesson we discussed duopoly markets in which two firms compete to sell a product. In such markets, the firms behave strategically; each firm must think about what the other firm is doing in order to decide what it should do itself. The theory of duopoly was originally developed in the 19th century, but it led to the theory of games in the 20th century. The first major book in game theory, published in 1944, was Theory of Games and Economic Behavior,byJohnvon Neumann (1903-1957) and Oskar Morgenstern (1902-1977). We will return to the contributions of Von Neumann and Morgenstern in Lesson 19, on uncertainty and expected utility. Agroupofpeople(orteams,firms,armies,countries)areinagame if their decision problems are interdependent, in the sense that the actions that all of them take influence the outcomes for everyone. Game theory is the study of games; it can also be called interactive decision theory. Many real-life interactions can be viewed as games. Obviously football, soccer, and baseball games are games.Butsoaretheinteractionsofduopolists,thepoliticalcampaignsbetweenparties before an election, and the interactions of armed forces and countries. Even some interactions between animal or plant species in nature can be modeled as games. In fact, game theory has been used in many different fields in recent decades, including economics, political science, psychology, sociology, computer science, and biology. This brief lesson is not meant to replace a formal course in game theory; it is only an in- troduction. The general emphasis is on how strategic behavior affects the interactions among rational players in a game. We will provide some basic definitions, and we will discuss a number of well-known simple examples. We will start with a description of the prisoners’ dilemma,where we will introduce the idea of a dominant strategy equilibrium.Wewillbrieflydiscussrepeated games in the prisoners’ dilemma context, and tit for tat strategies.Thenwewilldescribethe Lesson 14. Game Theory 2 battle of the sexes,andintroducetheconceptofNash equilibrium.Wewilldiscussthepossibilities of there being multiple Nash equilibria, or no (pure strategy) Nash equilibria, and we discuss the idea of mixed strategy equilibria. We will then present an expanded battle of the sexes,andwe will see that in game theory, an expansion of choices may make players worse off instead of better off.Attheendofthelesson,wewilldescribesequential move games,andwewillbrieflydiscuss threats. 2. The Prisoners’ Dilemma, and the Idea of Dominant Strategy Equilibrium The most well-known example in game theory is the prisoners’ dilemma.(Itwasdeveloped around 1950 by Merrill M. Flood (1908-1991) and Melvin Dresher (1911-1992) of the RAND Cor- poration. It was so-named by Albert W. Tucker (1905-1995), a Princeton University mathematics professor.) Consider the following. A crime is committed. The police arrive at the scene and arrest two suspects. Each of the suspects is taken to the police station for interrogation, and they are placed in separate cells. The cells are cold and nasty. The police interrogate them separately, and without any lawyers present. A police officer tells each one: “You can keep your mouth shut and refuse to testify. Or, you can confess and testify at trial.” We use some special and potentially confusing terminology to describe this choice. If a suspect refuses to testify, we say that he has chosen to cooperate with his fellow suspect. If a suspect confesses and testifies at trial, we say that he has chosen to defect from his fellow suspect. The reader will need to remember that to “cooperate” means to cooperate with the other suspect, not with the police,andalsotorememberthatto“defect”meanstodefectfrom the other suspect. The officer goes on: “If both of you refuse to testify, we will only be able to convict you on aminorcharge,whichwillresultinasentenceof6monthsinprisonforeachofyou.Ifbothof you confess and testify, you will each get 5 years in prison. If one of you refuses to testify (i.e., “cooperates”) while the other confesses and testifies (i.e., “defects”), the one who testifies will go free, and the one who refuses to testify will get a full 10 years in prison.” The officer concludes: “That’s what we’re offering you, you lowlife hooligan. Think it over. We’ll be back tomorrow to hear what you have to say.” We now consider this question: given this information, how should a rational suspect behave? Lesson 14. Game Theory 3 Should the suspects “cooperate” with each other (and tell the police nothing) or should they “defect” from each other (and confess)? Table 14.1 below shows the prisoners’ dilemma game. In game theory, the people playing the game are called players, so we now refer to our suspects as players. Player 1 chooses the rows in the table, while player 2 chooses the columns. Each of them has two possible actions to choose: “Cooperate” or “Defect.” Each of the four action combinations results in payoffstoeachplayer, in the form of prison time to be served. The outcomes are shown as the vectors in the cells of Table 14.1. The first entry is always the outcome for player 1, and the second is always the outcome for player 2. For instance, if player 1 defects while player 2 cooperates (bottom row, left column of the table), prison time for player 1 is None, and prison time for player 2 is 10 years. Note that these outcomes are “bads” rather than “goods”; each player wants to minimize his outcome. Player 2 Cooperate Defect Cooperate 6months,6months 10 years, None Player 1 Defect None, 10 years 5years,5years Table 14.1: The prisoners’ dilemma. Each suspect wants to minimize his own jail time. But each must think about what the other suspect will do. Let us now analyze the problem carefully. Here’s how player 1 thinks about the game. He considers what player 2 might do. If player 2 cooperates, they are in the first column of the table. In this case, player 1 gets 6 months if he cooperates (first row), and no prison time if he defects (second row). Therefore, if player 2 cooperates, player 1 will defect. On the other hand, if player 2defects,theyareinthesecondcolumnofthetable.Inthiscase,player1gets10yearsifhe cooperates (first row), and 5 years if he defects (second row). Therefore if player 2 defects, player 1willdefect. We now realize that whatever action player 2 chooses, player 1 will want to defect. We leave it to the reader to do the same type of analysis for player 2, whose payoffsarethesecondentries Lesson 14. Game Theory 4 in each of the payoff vectors. When you do this, you will conclude that player 2 will want to defect, whatever action player 1 chooses. In a game like this, actions that players might take are called strategies.Adominant strategy is a strategy which is optimal for a player, no matter what strategy the other player is choosing. In the prisoners’ dilemma, the best thing for player 1 to do is to defect, no matter what player 2mightdo.Therefore“Defect”isadominantstrategyforplayer1.Similarly,“Defect”isa dominant strategy for player 2. When a pair of strategies are each dominant for the two players, the pair is called a dominant strategy equilibrium or a solution in dominant strategies.Wenow know that (Defect, Defect) is a dominant strategy equilibrium in the prisoners’ dilemma. Rational players should choose dominant strategies if they exist; they clearly make sense, since a dominant strategy is the best for a player no matter what the other player is doing. We conclude that the two suspects should both confess to the police, or defect from each other. Therefore they will each end up with a prison sentence of 5 years. Between the two of them, the total will be 10 years of prison. But this outcome is very peculiar,becauseiftheyhad both chosen to keep their mouths shut, or cooperate with each other, they would have ended up with prison sentences of only 6 months each, and a total of 1 year between the two of them. Back in Lesson 11 on perfectly competitive markets, we introduced the reader to Adam Smith’s free market philosophy—his invisible hand theory. In brief, this is the theory that if the market is allowed to operate freely, with each consumer seeking to maximize his own utility and each firm seeking to maximize its own profits, with each of the players in the grand market game ignoring the welfare of all the others and doing the best it can for itself, the outcome will actually be best for society. That is, self-interested consumers and firms in a competitive market will end up maximizing social surplus, the sum of consumers’ and producers’ surplus. But now note the dramatically different conclusion in the prisoners’ dilemma. In this game, where we are focusing on the outcomes for the two suspects and ignoring the welfare of the police officers, the victims of the original crime, and the rest of society, the obvious and simple measure of social welfare for our two suspects is 1timesthesumofthetwoprisonsentences.(Weneed − the 1toconvertacost—prison time—into a benefit.) But our analysis above indicates that − each player, pursuing his own self-interest, maximizing his own welfare by minimizing his years Lesson 14. Game Theory 7 here is that it may sometimes be in the interest of people to have reputations as being “crazy” or “tough,” in order to induce beneficial changes in the behavior of others. The moral of this story is that game theory can sometimes improve its predictions in explaining real-world phenomena by expanding its models. 4. The Battle of the Sexes, and the Idea of Nash Equilibrium Most games are not as simple to solve as the prisoners’ dilemma.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Prisoners of Reason Game Theory and Neoliberal Political Economy
    C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/6549131/WORKINGFOLDER/AMADAE/9781107064034PRE.3D iii [1–28] 11.8.2015 9:57PM Prisoners of Reason Game Theory and Neoliberal Political Economy S. M. AMADAE Massachusetts Institute of Technology C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/6549131/WORKINGFOLDER/AMADAE/9781107064034PRE.3D iv [1–28] 11.8.2015 9:57PM 32 Avenue of the Americas, New York, ny 10013-2473, usa Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence. www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107671195 © S. M. Amadae 2015 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2015 Printed in the United States of America A catalog record for this publication is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Amadae, S. M., author. Prisoners of reason : game theory and neoliberal political economy / S.M. Amadae. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn 978-1-107-06403-4 (hbk. : alk. paper) – isbn 978-1-107-67119-5 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Game theory – Political aspects. 2. International relations. 3. Neoliberalism. 4. Social choice – Political aspects. 5. Political science – Philosophy. I. Title. hb144.a43 2015 320.01′5193 – dc23 2015020954 isbn 978-1-107-06403-4 Hardback isbn 978-1-107-67119-5 Paperback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party Internet Web sites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such Web sites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • Repeated Games
    REPEATED GAMES 1 Early PD experiments In 1950, Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher (at RAND) devised an experiment to test Nash’s theory about defection in a two-person prisoners’ dilemma. Experimental Design – They asked two friends to play the PD 100 times. – They measured the success of Nash’s equilibrium concept by counting the number of times the players chose {D;D}. 2 Flood and Dresher’s results Player 1 cooperated in 68 rounds Player 2 cooperated in 78 rounds Both cooperated in 60 of last 89 rounds Flood Dresher Nash 3 Flood and Dresher’s results Player 1 cooperated in 68 rounds Player 2 cooperated in 78 rounds Both cooperated in 60 of last 89 rounds Wait a Ha! That jerk I can’tI’mOh a be Ha! Nash second... Nash was genius...%&@#!wrong! was wrong! wrong! Flood Dresher Nash 4 Nash’s response “If this experiment were conducted with various different players rotating the competition and with no information given to a player of what choices the others have been making until the end of all trials, then the experimental results would have been quite different, for this modification of procedure would remove the interaction between the trials.” 5 Nash’s response “The flaw in this experiment as a test of equilibrium point theory is that the experiment really amounts to having the players play one large multimove game. One cannot...think of the thing as a sequence of independent games...there is too much interaction.” In other words, Nash said that repeating the game changes the game itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 16 Oligopoly and Game Theory Oligopoly Oligopoly
    Chapter 16 “Game theory is the study of how people Oligopoly behave in strategic situations. By ‘strategic’ we mean a situation in which each person, when deciding what actions to take, must and consider how others might respond to that action.” Game Theory Oligopoly Oligopoly • “Oligopoly is a market structure in which only a few • “Figuring out the environment” when there are sellers offer similar or identical products.” rival firms in your market, means guessing (or • As we saw last time, oligopoly differs from the two ‘ideal’ inferring) what the rivals are doing and then cases, perfect competition and monopoly. choosing a “best response” • In the ‘ideal’ cases, the firm just has to figure out the environment (prices for the perfectly competitive firm, • This means that firms in oligopoly markets are demand curve for the monopolist) and select output to playing a ‘game’ against each other. maximize profits • To understand how they might act, we need to • An oligopolist, on the other hand, also has to figure out the understand how players play games. environment before computing the best output. • This is the role of Game Theory. Some Concepts We Will Use Strategies • Strategies • Strategies are the choices that a player is allowed • Payoffs to make. • Sequential Games •Examples: • Simultaneous Games – In game trees (sequential games), the players choose paths or branches from roots or nodes. • Best Responses – In matrix games players choose rows or columns • Equilibrium – In market games, players choose prices, or quantities, • Dominated strategies or R and D levels. • Dominant Strategies. – In Blackjack, players choose whether to stay or draw.
    [Show full text]
  • Nash Equilibrium
    Lecture 3: Nash equilibrium Nash equilibrium: The mathematician John Nash introduced the concept of an equi- librium for a game, and equilibrium is often called a Nash equilibrium. They provide a way to identify reasonable outcomes when an easy argument based on domination (like in the prisoner's dilemma, see lecture 2) is not available. We formulate the concept of an equilibrium for a two player game with respective 0 payoff matrices PR and PC . We write PR(s; s ) for the payoff for player R when R plays 0 s and C plays s, this is simply the (s; s ) entry the matrix PR. Definition 1. A pair of strategies (^sR; s^C ) is an Nash equilbrium for a two player game if no player can improve his payoff by changing his strategy from his equilibrium strategy to another strategy provided his opponent keeps his equilibrium strategy. In terms of the payoffs matrices this means that PR(sR; s^C ) ≤ P (^sR; s^C ) for all sR ; and PC (^sR; sC ) ≤ P (^sR; s^C ) for all sc : The idea at work in the definition of Nash equilibrium deserves a name: Definition 2. A strategy s^R is a best-response to a strategy sc if PR(sR; sC ) ≤ P (^sR; sC ) for all sR ; i.e. s^R is such that max PR(sR; sC ) = P (^sR; sC ) sR We can now reformulate the idea of a Nash equilibrium as The pair (^sR; s^C ) is a Nash equilibrium if and only ifs ^R is a best-response tos ^C and s^C is a best-response tos ^R.
    [Show full text]
  • A Beautiful Math : John Nash, Game Theory, and the Modern Quest for a Code of Nature / Tom Siegfried
    A BEAUTIFULA BEAUTIFUL MATH MATH JOHN NASH, GAME THEORY, AND THE MODERN QUEST FOR A CODE OF NATURE TOM SIEGFRIED JOSEPH HENRY PRESS Washington, D.C. Joseph Henry Press • 500 Fifth Street, NW • Washington, DC 20001 The Joseph Henry Press, an imprint of the National Academies Press, was created with the goal of making books on science, technology, and health more widely available to professionals and the public. Joseph Henry was one of the founders of the National Academy of Sciences and a leader in early Ameri- can science. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this volume are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academy of Sciences or its affiliated institutions. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Siegfried, Tom, 1950- A beautiful math : John Nash, game theory, and the modern quest for a code of nature / Tom Siegfried. — 1st ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-309-10192-1 (hardback) — ISBN 0-309-65928-0 (pdfs) 1. Game theory. I. Title. QA269.S574 2006 519.3—dc22 2006012394 Copyright 2006 by Tom Siegfried. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Preface Shortly after 9/11, a Russian scientist named Dmitri Gusev pro- posed an explanation for the origin of the name Al Qaeda. He suggested that the terrorist organization took its name from Isaac Asimov’s famous 1950s science fiction novels known as the Foun- dation Trilogy. After all, he reasoned, the Arabic word “qaeda” means something like “base” or “foundation.” And the first novel in Asimov’s trilogy, Foundation, apparently was titled “al-Qaida” in an Arabic translation.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Local Optimality in Nonconvex-Nonconcave Minimax Optimization?
    What is Local Optimality in Nonconvex-Nonconcave Minimax Optimization? Chi Jin Praneeth Netrapalli University of California, Berkeley Microsoft Research, India [email protected] [email protected] Michael I. Jordan University of California, Berkeley [email protected] August 18, 2020 Abstract Minimax optimization has found extensive application in modern machine learning, in settings such as generative adversarial networks (GANs), adversarial training and multi-agent reinforcement learning. As most of these applications involve continuous nonconvex-nonconcave formulations, a very basic question arises—“what is a proper definition of local optima?” Most previous work answers this question using classical notions of equilibria from simultaneous games, where the min-player and the max-player act simultaneously. In contrast, most applications in machine learning, including GANs and adversarial training, correspond to sequential games, where the order of which player acts first is crucial (since minimax is in general not equal to maximin due to the nonconvex-nonconcave nature of the problems). The main contribution of this paper is to propose a proper mathematical definition of local optimality for this sequential setting—local minimax—as well as to present its properties and existence results. Finally, we establish a strong connection to a basic local search algorithm—gradient descent ascent (GDA)—under mild conditions, all stable limit points of GDA are exactly local minimax points up to some degenerate points. 1 Introduction arXiv:1902.00618v3 [cs.LG] 15 Aug 2020 Minimax optimization refers to problems of two agents—one agent tries to minimize the payoff function f : X × Y ! R while the other agent tries to maximize it.
    [Show full text]
  • Game Theory and Its Practical Applications
    University of Northern Iowa UNI ScholarWorks Presidential Scholars Theses (1990 – 2006) Honors Program 1997 Game theory and its practical applications Angela M. Koos University of Northern Iowa Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy Copyright ©1997 Angela M. Koos Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uni.edu/pst Part of the Other Economics Commons Recommended Citation Koos, Angela M., "Game theory and its practical applications" (1997). Presidential Scholars Theses (1990 – 2006). 100. https://scholarworks.uni.edu/pst/100 This Open Access Presidential Scholars Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Honors Program at UNI ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Presidential Scholars Theses (1990 – 2006) by an authorized administrator of UNI ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Game Theory and its Practical Applications A Presidential Scholar Senior Thesis University of Northern Iowa by Angela M. Koos Spring 1997 Dr. Ken Brown, 7 Dfrte Thesis and Major Advisor ,~-,, Dr. Ed Rathmell, Date Chair of Presidential Scholars Board Table of Contents Section Page(s) I. Historical Overview 1 I.A. Early Contributions to Game Theory 1 - 3 LB. John von Neumann, the RAND Corporation, and the Arms Race 3 - 7 LC. John Nash 7 - 8 I.D. Other Contributions to Game Theory 9 II. Defining Game Theory 9 - 12 II.A. Formal Representations of Games 12 - 13 II.A. I. Extensive Form 13 - 24 II.A.2. Normal Form 24 - 25 III. The Minimax Theorem 25 - 26 III.A. Preliminary Comments 26 - 27 III.B. The Theorem 27 - 28 IV.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Is Behavioral Game Theory a Game for Economists? the Concept of Beliefs in Equilibrium∗
    Why is behavioral game theory a game for economists? The concept of beliefs in equilibrium∗ Michiru Nagatsu Chiara Lisciandray May 7, 2021 Abstract The interdisciplinary exchange between economists and psychologists has so far been more active and fruitful in the modifications of Expected Util- ity Theory than in those of Game Theory. We argue that this asymmetry may be explained by economists' specific way of doing equilibrium analysis of aggregate-level outcomes in their practice, and by psychologists' reluctance to fully engage with such practice. We focus on the notion of belief that is em- bedded in economists' practice of equilibrium analysis, more specifically Nash equilibrium, and argue that its difference from the psychological counterpart is one of the factors that makes interdisciplinary exchange in behavioral game theory more difficult. 1 Introduction One of the most influential texts published in the behavioral and social sciences in the first half of the twentieth century was, according to many, Von Neumann and Morgenstern's (vNM) Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (1944). Not only did the book lay the foundation of game theory, which has become the essential research tool in contemporary economics, it also influenced several other disciplines beyond economics, from political science to linguistics and biology. Two of the most important contributions of Theory of Games and Economic Be- havior to economics are the axiomatic derivation of expected utility (in the second edition of 1947) and the minimax solution to zero-sum games. John Nash general- ized vNM's existence proof of equilibrium in non-zero-sum games in 1951, thereby ∗To appear in Egashira, Taishido, Hands and M¨aki(eds.) (2018) A Genealogy of Self-interest in Economics (Springer).
    [Show full text]
  • Algorithmic Collusion in the Digital Single Market
    This is a repository copy of EU Competition Policy: Algorithmic Collusion in the Digital Single Market. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/160267/ Article: Stewart-Moreno, Alexander (2020) EU Competition Policy: Algorithmic Collusion in the Digital Single Market. York Law Review, 1. pp. 49-82. 10.15124/yao-y99rnjtm Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ EU Competition Policy: Algorithmic Collusion in the Digital Single Market Alexander Stewart-Moreno Abstract E-commerce promises a digital environment with ‘more perfect’ market characteristics. Although consumers may benefit from digital efficiencies, firms’ exploitation of such benefits may require new policy to regulate in line with the European Commission’s Digital Single Market Strategy. Price-setting algorithms are central to this dichotomy, as faster and more transparent pricing strategies could conceivably maintain algorithmic price-fixing cartels – which Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union may prove inadequate in tackling.
    [Show full text]
  • Game Theory: Basic Concepts and Terminology
    Leigh Tesfatsion 29 December 2019 Game Theory: Basic Concepts and Terminology A GAME consists of: • a collection of decision-makers, called players; • the possible information states of each player at each decision time; • the collection of feasible moves (decisions, actions, plays,...) that each player can choose to make in each of his possible information states; • a procedure for determining how the move choices of all the players collectively determine the possible outcomes of the game; • preferences of the individual players over these possible out- comes, typically measured by a utility or payoff function. 1 EMPLOYER CD C (40,40) (10,60) WORKER D (60,10) (20,20) Illustrative Modeling of a Work-Site Interaction as a \Prisoner's Dilemma Game" D = Defect (Shirk) C = Cooperate (Work Hard), (P1,P2) = (Worker Payoff, Employer Payoff) 2 A PURE STRATEGY for a player in a particular game is a complete contingency plan, i.e., a plan describing what move that player should take in each of his possible information states. A MIXED STRATEGY for a player i in a particular game is a probability distribution defined over the collection Si of player i's feasible pure strategy choices. That is, a mixed strategy assigns a nonnegative probability Prob(s) to each pure strategy s in Si, with X Prob(s) = 1 : (1) s2Si EXPOSITIONAL NOTE: For simplicity, the remainder of these brief notes will develop defi- nitions in terms of pure strategies; the unqualified use of \strategy" will always refer to pure strategy. Extension to mixed strategies is conceptually straightforward. 3 ONE-STAGE SIMULTANEOUS-MOVE N-PLAYER GAME: • The game is played just once among N players.
    [Show full text]
  • Chronology of Game Theory
    Chronology of Game Theory http://www.econ.canterbury.ac.nz/personal_pages/paul_walker/g... Home | UC Home | Econ. Department | Chronology of Game Theory | Nobel Prize A Chronology of Game Theory by Paul Walker September 2012 | Ancient | 1700 | 1800 | 1900 | 1950 | 1960 | 1970 | 1980 | 1990 | Nobel Prize | 2nd Nobel Prize | 3rd Nobel Prize | 0-500AD The Babylonian Talmud is the compilation of ancient law and tradition set down during the first five centuries A.D. which serves as the basis of Jewish religious, criminal and civil law. One problem discussed in the Talmud is the so called marriage contract problem: a man has three wives whose marriage contracts specify that in the case of this death they receive 100, 200 and 300 respectively. The Talmud gives apparently contradictory recommendations. Where the man dies leaving an estate of only 100, the Talmud recommends equal division. However, if the estate is worth 300 it recommends proportional division (50,100,150), while for an estate of 200, its recommendation of (50,75,75) is a complete mystery. This particular Mishna has baffled Talmudic scholars for two millennia. In 1985, it was recognised that the Talmud anticipates the modern theory of cooperative games. Each solution corresponds to the nucleolus of an appropriately defined game. 1713 In a letter dated 13 November 1713 Francis Waldegrave provided the first, known, minimax mixed strategy solution to a two-person game. Waldegrave wrote the letter, about a two-person version of the card game le Her, to Pierre-Remond de Montmort who in turn wrote to Nicolas Bernoulli, including in his letter a discussion of the Waldegrave solution.
    [Show full text]
  • Nash Equilibrium and Mechanism Design ✩ ∗ Eric Maskin A,B, a Institute for Advanced Study, United States B Princeton University, United States Article Info Abstract
    Games and Economic Behavior 71 (2011) 9–11 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Games and Economic Behavior www.elsevier.com/locate/geb Commentary: Nash equilibrium and mechanism design ✩ ∗ Eric Maskin a,b, a Institute for Advanced Study, United States b Princeton University, United States article info abstract Article history: I argue that the principal theoretical and practical drawbacks of Nash equilibrium as a Received 23 December 2008 solution concept are far less troublesome in problems of mechanism design than in most Available online 18 January 2009 other applications of game theory. © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. JEL classification: C70 Keywords: Nash equilibrium Mechanism design Solution concept A Nash equilibrium (called an “equilibrium point” by John Nash himself; see Nash, 1950) of a game occurs when players choose strategies from which unilateral deviations do not pay. The concept of Nash equilibrium is far and away Nash’s most important legacy to economics and the other behavioral sciences. This is because it remains the central solution concept—i.e., prediction of behavior—in applications of game theory to these fields. As I shall review below, Nash equilibrium has some important shortcomings, both theoretical and practical. I will argue, however, that these drawbacks are far less troublesome in problems of mechanism design than in most other applications of game theory. 1. Solution concepts Game-theoretic solution concepts divide into those that are noncooperative—where the basic unit of analysis is the in- dividual player—and those that are cooperative, where the focus is on coalitions of players. John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern themselves viewed the cooperative part of game theory as more important, and their seminal treatise, von Neumann and Morgenstern (1944), devoted fully three quarters of its space to cooperative matters.
    [Show full text]